​As digital devices have decreased in price, they have become more available to more children. The impact of this availability on children’s social lives have been debated with vigor, often with gloomy foreboding. The concern centers on the possibility that online activities are absorbing so much of children’s time that little is left for other worthy pursuits, e.g., face-to-face conversations.

​But data to inform these opinions have been lacking. We know children who own digital devices (and now, that’s most of them) spend a great deal of time interacting with them—estimates for teens are around 10 hours per day or more. To some, it’s self-evident that must carry a cost, and the cost is assumed to be social. Kids are isolated by digital devices, kids no longer know how to speak face to face, and so on (e.g., here.)

But this was really punditry and speculation. Hard data were lacking, especially hard data to which causality could be ascribed. That is, we might see kids who were socially withdrawn who spent a lot of time in online social pursuits, but such a correlation would be hard to interpret. Were online social interactions replacing face-to-face interactions and causing social isolation, or would this child be withdrawn in any event, and online communication is actually a more social activity than this child would otherwise engage in?

Clearly, a true experiment would help clear the matter up: take 1,000 middle-schoolers, give 500 of them a computer, and see what happens over the course of a school year. Well, darned if someone didn’t do that (Fairlie & Kalil, 2017).

The experimenters administered a survey at the start and the end of the school year. They also had access to administrative data regarding school participation.

It should be noted that children in the control group did have access to computer time at school and elsewhere, and some families purchased computers on their own during the year. The researchers tracked these confounds as best they could. Children given the computers did indeed spend more computer time per week than control kids.

The results:Friends: The results showed that kids given computers did not report communicating with or hanging out with their friends less…in fact, they reported spending more time with friends.Social groups: Giving kids a computer had no impact on the probability that they would be part of a sports team, club, or music group.School participation: There was also no effect of home computers on the number of days absent from school (or tardy), or days suspended.Competing activities: Self-reported TV time, homework time and leisure reading were unaffected.Social networking: Children with a home computer were more likely to have a social network page and reported spending more time on social networks. There was also a statistically nonsignificant increase in the probability of reporting cyberbullying, a result that is difficult to interpret because the overall mean was so low (less than 1%).

A few caveats of these conclusions should be borne in mind. First, the study only lasted for one school year. Second, having a smart phone, with the constant access it affords, may yield different results. Third, children were given a computer, but not Internet access. Some kids had it anyway, but the more profound effects may come from online access.

All that said, I am less frightened than some by the threat that digital technologies will eat children’s minds, or making them anti-social zombies. I wrote The Reading Mindbefore this study was published, but as I put together the data, I suggested that digital activities were not replacing reading, and that’s true for two reasons. First, reading provides a different sort of pleasure than gaming or social networking. If you like reading, that pleasure is only available by reading. Second, digital technology has not reduced reading for most kids because most kids don’t read anyway.

This later point is the most salient to me, and has most influenced how I raise my own kids. It’s not that most digital technologies are so terrible, but most of what my kids can do online is less preferable to me than what they can do offline. I’d rather they make something, take a bike ride, or read a book. But if they horse around on the computer, that’s no worse (or better) than watching Say Yes to the Dress, my ten-year-old's latest television infatuation.

My real concern about digital technology use in teens is hard to quantify. When I was a teen I, like most, probably assigned too much value to the opinions of my peers. They necessarily stopped influencing me when I got off the school bus, and I was influenced mostly by my parents and two sisters. I don’t relish the thought of children taking their peer groups home with them in their pockets, influencing them 24/7, and diminishing the impact of their families.

Nicole Tate

4/18/2017 01:22:43 am

Hi Daniel, thanks always for your thoughtful work. The comments you make in your final paragraph remind me very much of what Gordon Neufild says of the rise in peer group influence and the correlative decline of parent/family influence in the lives of children and teens.

Interesting article. Thank you so much for taking the time to write and post it.

An argument I've often made regarding young people's supposed inability to socialize is that they are now socializing more than ever, because of the instantaneous access they have to their friends. Of course, the points made here about persistent exposure to friends' influence are good ones, but I do not believe that limiting the time spent on the devices is the solution; rather, it makes far more sense to teach young people how to use the technology responsibly.

Those who are opposed to exposing young people to technology are missing the point when they become too fixated on the negatives that can come from excessive use. Sure, there are a number of things that can go wrong or cause unwanted behaviors to manifest, but isn't this true of just about anything? I know I was called a bookworm when I was at school and my teachers were always urging me to go to play outside. There was no technology there, and yet I was displaying essentially the same behavior.

I think it is far more valuable to identify and leverage the successes and advantages technology presents. Anyone can ask a question on a forum, and someone somewhere will answer it. In this one example alone, we are seeing how access to a global network allows people to interact with and assist others regardless of their background, location, religion, nationality etc., which is an amazing opportunity. The very fact that I have been able to read this article and reply to it from where I am in a rural town in South Africa further reinforces my point.

I'm not going to use this platform to extol the many virtues of technology--there are numerous blogs and websites that do a magnificent job of that--but I feel it's always important to look at both sides of the coin when it comes to deciding on a resource's value/danger.

We live in a world where technology is ubiquitous. And that's not going to change unless something cataclysmic happens. To me, this means we have to take the 'lemons' we've been dealt and make lemonade, or, more importantly, teach young people how to make lemonade: we need to show them how to maximize their benefit from using the resource, and how to manage the potential pitfalls.

I fear I am now starting to get too comfortable on my soap box, so I will stop here, but if anyone wants to continue the conversation, agree or challenge me on my points, I am very very glad to do so.

Thank you, Daniel, for your article. I also appreciated the thoughtful comments. I wanted to add of couple of points to the conversation.
As a Marriage and Family Therapist and someone who has been researching and writing about cyber bullying for the last seven years, I embrace a common behavioral principle which explains cause and effect. "The degree of access or exposure to or consumption of anything is a predictor of consequences - either positive or negative." Although I enjoy my technology and its benefits, I think there is something to be said about "keeping it in balance". And therein lies my concern, especially with the negative screen effects on our children's psychological, neurological, emotional, and social development.
There is a plethora of research-based books and articles out describing the effects both interactive and passive screen-time have on our children. I am not an alarmist, but I do think it is wise to consider what the experts are saying on both sides of the "screen dependence" argument. Also, Common Sense Media (www.commensensemedia.org) has ongoing research and well as resources in addressing these concerning tech issues.They are a great group of folks!
When I speak to audiences, I share that "cyber bullying is NOT the cause of anything. It is the consequence of the slow erosion of the human empathic spirit." And although technology is not the problem, it is the vehicle by which to effectuate harmful agendas.Teaching young people (and reminding adults) to be responsible digital citizens is a good place to start. At the same time, it is well-documented that face to face communications and social interactions are necessary to feel empathy and restore compassion for one another.
I'm all for a balanced tech-diet! I just don't see it happening much!
Thank you,again, for your article. The conversation needs to continue.

Kam. Smith

5/16/2017 08:11:43 am

It is difficult to recognize, but new technologies really do more good than harm. And it's worth not isolating children from IT, but helping them learn how to use correctly these tools. Good article. I hope you'll write something else on this topic :)